Uechi-Ryu.com

Ben said: 'Are we not already in a national database every time we (legally) purchase a gun? I'll do some research to educate myself more about this... but I though Uncle Sam already knows I have a couple of guns.'

The feds are, by law, supposed to destroy information regarding your application to purchase a firearm as soon as you were approved. The Clinton administration and Jant Reno defied that law and ordered records kept for an indefinite period. So, legally, the feds should not know what you own. However, they might have your info in a little black book somehere.

If you apply for a carry permit you will need to submit fingerprints to the FBI and VA State Police. The State police will send them back... the feds will not.

Twiggy said: 'And if it hasn't been updated since 1776, then you should start writing letters to Congress and your other elected representatives and begin campaigning for government reform.'

Absolutely not! The framers of the US Constitution, along with the amendments, created the best framework for a republic in the world. It is inviolate. Our country is based on individual freedoms. Take those away (and some politicians continue to try to do that) and we would be like "write your choice of a country here". No thanks.

Twiggy said: 'If you choose to censor what I have to say, then you're going to have rather dull discourse.'

Who censored you? Only Panther can edit this screen. Panther?

Twiggy said: 'Looking south, I see a culture that markets fear.'

???? No fear here.

Twiggy said: 'maybe someone should've given them a few 30.06 Winchesters'

Well, that would be 30-30 Winchester or 30-06 Springfield, but what is a little error in facts during a debate.

Rich in Virginia

My point was, the guy shot and killed his neighbour for having the gall to step onto his property after said guy shoots said neighbour's dog.

Thanks for clearing that up twiggy, my point is you have the right to defend your self. All Canadian provinces allow you to defend yourself. If you read your link you might notice the mention of broken glass. I read that as someone breaking in with a 2x4. I read it as intent with a weapon. This isn't rocket science, if some one intends to attack you with a weapon capable of ending your life, you don't burn incense and chant you deploy some form of lethal force. If the aggressor dies then those are the breaks. Better them than you.

This is the kind of thing that can be resolved by calling Animal Control and/or local law enforcement and reporting the neighbour, not shooting him with a shotgun.

I can agree that: 1) The guy was wrong to shoot the dog, phone the
proper authorities.
2) The other guy was wrong to show up with a
weapon to discuss the matter.
3) The other guy made a fatal mistake trying to
gain entry to the home with his weapon.

4) The idiot with the pelt gun did the right thing
when faced with an armed intruder, he
eliminated the threat. Yes it's unfortunate that
someone died over a barking dog dispute.
Twiggy you seem fond of spiritual references ,
So here's another one for you to consider. The
good book tells us we reap what we sow. Show

up armed we can expect an armed response.

A man died because he had a dog that barked a lot.

No a man died because he escalated to lethal force and didn't deliver.

Would the shooter be a wimp if he went inside, locked his doors and called police while the neighbour brandishing the two-by-four was on the way over?

Not at all but given response times he may have been long dead had he done this.

These laws also protect your children from accidentally picking up the loaded gun and shooting themselves or one of their friends

.Why yes they do, or that's the rational at any rate. The way I see it we can not legislate against stupidity. Kids kill themselves playing in vehicles but no laws about keys kids and unattended cars. Guess it's not a social issue yet even though more kids die playing in the family vehicle than die as a result of accidental firearms discharge in Canada. Guns bad cars good I guess.More urban Canadians drive than shoot makes sense.

And while you may argue that your children are much too smart to ever play with a loaded gun, their friends may not be. All it takes is just a bit of carelessness and someone could be seriously injured or killed.

Hey don't tell me what I may or may not argue, your not omnipotent. BTW carelessness is the number 1 cause of all accidents. Lack of training and experience is # 2. So what's the point?

I know this because my friend's older brother was killed when he and some friends got messing around with a rifle that was left loaded and unattended. I've seen the kind of pain his family lives with - if only someone had put it away, if only it had been locked up, if only it hadn't been loaded... but that doesn't bring Mike back.

I'm sorry to here of this death….do believe that legislating trigger locks will make these irresponsible gun owners more responsible? I guess Mike is dead. I'd rather my kids lived so I keep a weapon handy. I'm not going to feed my children to the wildlife because I followed the lock law. I don't keep the weapon loaded but keep it stored handy. The weapon and rounds are separate and out of reach, but I can deploy them in short order.

You can sanitize it if you want, but "escalating to the use of lethal force to eliminate a threat" is killing someone.

I'm not sanitizing anything. You respond with as much force as required to prevail. If that means you open some one up with a knife or you put a few rounds into the center of mass so be it. If they die they die, you reap what you sow. Everyone may die on tv when cut or shot but that’s not the case. If one response with lethal force they best be ready to continue because it takes a body a while to bleed out and they may just keep coming.

Lethal force is deadly force, which is force that kills someone.

Could be!

Since you obviously think I'm some loud mouth junior who just learned how to throw a punch yesterday and I'm all hopped up on my own sense of self-importance, I'd just like to point out to you that you have no idea what my rank is because I'm not going to stoop to saying things like, "I'm a black belt, my opinion is more valid because you're only a junior belt." I respect everyone's opinion, regardless of the belt they're wearing. And I've met plenty of power-tripping senior students wearing black belts they didn't deserve - so a belt colour won't automatically earn my respect. I respect people, not their clothes. You don't know my story - so before you make assumptions about who I am and what I have and have not seen and done, you should think about that.

You don't know what I think.BTW I could careless what rank, style, sex, size, age, colour, religion, foot fetish you may be involved with.

If someone broke into my house with a two by four, I'd lock myself in my room and call the police.

Good for you, might work might not. But it's good to have a plan. You assume everyone has a phone, and the police will respond.

Let them shoot him if they want to, it's out of my hands after I make that call.

Ahhhhh kill the EBG, but I want to keep my conscious clean. Yes let someone else do it….after all that’s why you pay taxes. If the cop gets beaten to death protecting you so be it, that's what he gets paid to do.

If you're going to patronize me and treat me like I'm some froofroo bubblehead who's more concerned about whether her makeup matches her shoes than she is about having an intelligent conversation, then this is the last time I'm posting

No one is patronizing you. Most I suspect see you as a flamer and haven't bothered continuing a dialoge with you. What exactly is a froo froo bubblehead? If you don't post again so be it. Why do you keep coming up with all this your treating me like a woman crap. Helll we don't know what your sex is or care. Fine you have a female name……do you really believe I'm an ungulate?

There really isn't any room for dissent at all here, is there? God Bless America! Double plus bless guns and the Make my Day legislation!

Hmmm for the record Twiggy I'm a Canadian. Why are you upset, because we don't agree with you?I thought you said you enjoy a debate. Last time I checked that requires different points of view.

Oh, one more thing - nice way to take my post out of context - "Martial arts is supposed to be about body, mind and spirit", which you so politely replied to, finished with "do we teach the skills to kill without the compassion to temper them?"

It wasn't my intend to take you out of content, just trying to keep it short, this response I've edited very little out of your post. Sorry for the length of this post folks.

Obviously a rhetorical question, since you have so much disdain for St. Francis, the Buddha, and Ghandi.

How do you know what I think, what I care about or believe. Just because I don't advocate being a floor mat does not mean I don't have a spiritual set of values or a set of beliefs about the path of peace. I would recommend you focus your responses on the debate and not on posting your judgements on my personal character.

Their policy of non-violence clearly had no impact on anyone - except maybe that Ghandi guy, he did free an entire country from imperialist rule by refusing to get up when someone beat him. But in any case, maybe someone should've given them a few 30.06 Winchesters and they might have gotten their point across a little better.

Mute question don't you think? Ghandi accomplished his goal with his chosen method. And many Ghandi wanta bees have been beaten to death as well trying to emulate his feat. Most don't understand he had a billion countrymen backing up his stand. Ghandi knew he would win he had the numbers, the British had to give in. Had he resorted to firearms, yes I know impossible for this man, he would have not used a 30.06 Winchester he would have used a 303 British Lee Enfield which were in ample supply in India at the time.

Unlike Ghandi when someone show up at your home with a 2x4 it's just you him and the lumber. Your not supported by a nation on the verge of violence your just taking your life and putting it in the hands of your attacker.

Laird in Banff

Did you really think this is a legit forum where issues are discussed and debated? This is the lair where the Uechi males anoint each other as they twist and take your words out of contact while vigorously stroking each other. "Brilliant job there, Panther. You are brilliant Van Sensei. Way to go Rich. Right on Laird...."

Any dissent will be rapidly discredited, deleted or blocked. Enter at your own risk in the masturbatory zone of the Uechi Male Circle Jerk.

Note from GEM: Please read the rules of the forums and discuss issues, not personalities. I realize it is easier to simply lash out at people who have values different than yours, insulting them instead of debating them in an intelligent manner, but we will not allow it on our forums. When Panther returns, he can take any action he feels is appropriate with this message and the poster.

Willow: That certainly is constructive!

Did I say anything derogatory about Twiggy? I merely stated my thoughts on the matter. And while I do like what Laird had to say, I did not give him an attaboy.

To you Willow, I do perceive a chip on your shoulder. Just my observation.

Rich

Whenever someone makes their first post, and it's an inappropriate insult directed against people who've been civilly arguing their point, one wonders if it's really a first post. IMHO.

Anyway, nothing the pro-selfdefense crowd has said is all that astounding. They want the right to self defense and have a difficult to argue with point that this for many people requires a firearm. Just can't rely on psychic energy, karate, police or even a knife to keep you safe depending on the situation.

It's true that sometimes a gun left out is bad news for kids. It's also bad news parents smoke in their homes, but then again they have that right, and the smoking serves no purpose. I find it VERY hard to read a teen was gunned down, killed by a shot to his BACK for simply playing a doorbell playing prank and running away. What psycho grabbed his firearm because someone rang his door? Or failed for SOME kind of evidence the kid was a threat? Running away just doesn't cut it. Not sure how to solve this problem 100%. Anyone?

I think I see a bit where the dissent is coming from. In my high school, people would be suspended for fighting even if they were attacked. Many would complain, but this was really only done when the fight was avoidable. If the kid chose to fight instead of run, to come when challenged, or to use excessive force, they did play a role in the fighting. They deserve punishment.

I find it hard to believe that taking a human life was the only way out here. I'm working with the limited info that someone broke into a home with a 2x4 and was gunned down, but I would think that gun or no, I'd use distance and a door before bullets if I were under such an attack. Maybe the guy was under a potentially lethal threat--let's assume that was the case--but oftentimes we allow that fact to blind us to the reality: we CAN justify taking a life in that circumstance AND they brought it on themselves. BUT I would not doubt that SOME deaths like this are avoidable and result from an overly vigorous response ethic (see murdered teen above, recall also the Japanese exchange student gunned down for coming to the wrong door years ago). I do not know for sure, but I think if I were truly forced to kill someone I would feel some sorrow and little or no regret. But if I failed to take a simpler measure and allow a hothead (surely these two must have had history?) to chill out and keep his life, I'd feel regret and guilt. On the other hand, if I managed to get the guy out of the house without killing him, I'd surely be furious about the damages and the assault and would seek appropriate punishment and $, but I could look at it as a life saved.

Maybe this killing was unavoidable, I'm not saying it wasn't. I hypothesize that what bothers the soccer moms etc who oppose guns is the flippant attitude about life that they perceive in some of these stories. (Not implicating any posters one way or the other, just making general comments.)

look what happens...

1) People are not descriminated against on this forum based on their gender, age, race, style of martial art, national origin, yadda, yadda, yadda...

2) People are welcome to debate any side of an issue using unskewed facts and stats...

3) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!

4) Any questions? Read the rules at the beginning of this forum...

Willow (or any of your previous incarnations or future incarnations),
No one has to discredit you, you have done an ample job yourself. I won't delete your post, you should do so yourself. If you want to "call out" Van Canna, at least have the guts to do so on his forum directly. You don't. You are a coward and, while I normally take a lot of extra time to discuss peoples' issues with them in e-mails and private messages before taking actions, I am fulfilling one of your prophecies, right here, right now...

YOU are NOT welcome on this forum and may NOT post to this forum any more!

I have to agree with IJ, I strongly doubt this is your first post OR first incarnation.

WILLOW, DON'T COME BACK TO MY FORUM!

In fact, though it is beyond my power, I HUMBLY REQUEST IN THE MOST ADAMANT WAY POSSIBLE THAT GEM-SENSEI HAVE YOU BANNED FROM ALL OF THE FORUMS.

FYI: Regarding Ghandi and guns, a few quotes from Ghandi:

"It would be better to pick up a gun than to give way to the cowardice of inactivity. "
-- M. Ghandi

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- "Ghandi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 446

Reviewing history, realize that Ghandi started by going door-to-door trying to stir up an armed revolt first. It wasn't because Ghandi was a pacifist that it didn't work. On the contrary, it didn't work because the people he was trying to incite (already well on the way to being completely disarmed) felt that they had no chance against the well-armed and more powerful British. He changed his tactics and was wildly successful, but still often lamented the extra time it took to achieve freedom that way!

Good to have you back Panther!